| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Setarcos Nous
   |
Posted - 2008.09.04 00:47:00 -
[511]
 Originally by: Cpt Branko
You're joking, right?
A freighter would have to be carrying at least 3 billion to get to the break-even point with the new Concord response times (which will mean you'll need 15 close to max skilled torp ravens to pull off a gank in 0.5) and insurance removal and if you want to make a, say, 100M profit per pilot, you're looking at targets carrying upwards of 6 billion ISK.
If 3B is the break even point, then hmm, lemme see, 6B would be 3B above that, divide by 15, that looks like a 200M profit/pilot to me. As someone with less that a 100M total, I can't say that sounds too horrible to me.
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 00:56:00 -
[512]
Originally by: Setarcos Nous
Originally by: Cpt Branko
You're joking, right?
A freighter would have to be carrying at least 3 billion to get to the break-even point with the new Concord response times (which will mean you'll need 15 close to max skilled torp ravens to pull off a gank in 0.5) and insurance removal and if you want to make a, say, 100M profit per pilot, you're looking at targets carrying upwards of 6 billion ISK.
If 3B is the break even point, then hmm, lemme see, 6B would be 3B above that, divide by 15, that looks like a 200M profit/pilot to me. As someone with less that a 100M total, I can't say that sounds too horrible to me.
The Maths as worked out earlier in regards to why freihgters will not be ganked post proposed changes
Assuming no insurance payout for concorded ships.
It took around 15 torp ravens to pop a freighter in a 0.5 (obelisk highest hit points, slave set, in gang, 5% hull mod, assuming 3 volleys of torps get off). That most pilots wernt flying around in slave sets was offset by the fact that not all ravens managed to get off a third volley. Lag, slow warp ins, slow pilots etc offset this.
Now concord have been buffed so your looking at (depending on the sec status of the system) anywhere between 25 and 45 torp ravens. (working on the principle you are gogin to get max 2 and possibly only 1 volley off)
So the cost (at 120million per raven (t2 bcus, arbelest sieges, t1 midslots) leaves costs for ganking a freighter at somewhere between 3 - 5 billion isk.
Ok, now from experience, you are looking at perhaps 35% of the loot surviving. So to cover the costs, a hit would have to be carrying maybe 13 billion isk of cargo.
Thats to break even
Trust me - its incredibly rare to see that amount of isk in a freighter. From experience you would be scanning for... maybe 30 hours to see one. Rather then risk hauling that much, most pilots with a brain would purchase a 2nd or 3rd freighter pilot (you can get in a freighter very quickly) and AFK three accounts on autopilot.
So thats 25+ guys hanging around for 30 hours. A good 750 man hours.
To break even.
Small corps dont have a chance to organise that amount of people, and risk that amount of isk. So CCPs mythical "logistic terrorism" belongs (like more and more of this game) simply to the big alliances.
SKUNK
|
c0rn1
Seraphin Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 01:02:00 -
[513]
Actually I dont have a problem with the fact that they wanna put empire a little safer.
BUT
They should underline their risk vs reward PR.
Why should a mission runner have high rewards in absolut safety?
I say, distribute the mission levels accordingly.
lvl 1 missions in 0.0-1.0 sec
lvl 2 missions in 0.0-.7
lvl 3 missions in 0.0- .4 sec
lvl 4 missions in 0.0- 0.2 sec
lvl 5 missions in faction 0.0 only.
Easy as that. No risk, no reward. Empire should be a safe trading place.
regards
c0rn1
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Life's a waste of time ... |
Roshan longshot
Gallente
Ordos Humanitas
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 02:44:00 -
[514]
You know there is somthing everyone has failed to see here...a safer empire brings in more players...Alot of people wont play Eve-online because of the PvP aspect in the game. They want time to build up to be able to function in the game...not be cannon fodder. The guy who got me into this game five years ago, left after getting "screwed" by some other players.
Yes the game is changing, better or worse thats up to be seen. I think this is a wise move on CCP's part. A non combative PvP area would be concidered by alot of future players a benifit....more players...more $$$ for CCP....More resources to invest in Eve-online....
Damn you CCP! Why did you have to make such a good game?? Yes you drew me back AGAIN! Oh well wheres the Omber? |
Roshan longshot
Gallente
Ordos Humanitas
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 02:52:00 -
[515]
Originally by: c0rn1
Actually I dont have a problem with the fact that they wanna put empire a little safer.
BUT
They should underline their risk vs reward PR.
Why should a mission runner have high rewards in absolut safety?
I say, distribute the mission levels accordingly.
lvl 1 missions in 0.0-1.0 sec
lvl 2 missions in 0.0-.7
lvl 3 missions in 0.0- .4 sec
lvl 4 missions in 0.0- 0.2 sec
lvl 5 missions in faction 0.0 only.
Easy as that. No risk, no reward. Empire should be a safe trading place.
regards
c0rn1
And by your table there...Nobody would risk their boats doing level three missions or higher. Mission runners set up to run the missions not pvp...a mission ship, no matter what tech level he is running cant fight a pvp ship.
Damn you CCP! Why did you have to make such a good game?? Yes you drew me back AGAIN! Oh well wheres the Omber? |
Xzar Fyrarr
Minmatar
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 03:45:00 -
[516]
Originally by: Roshan longshot
You know there is somthing everyone has failed to see here...a safer empire brings in more players...Alot of people wont play Eve-online because of the PvP aspect in the game. They want time to build up to be able to function in the game...not be cannon fodder. The guy who got me into this game five years ago, left after getting "screwed" by some other players.
Yes the game is changing, better or worse thats up to be seen. I think this is a wise move on CCP's part. A non combative PvP area would be concidered by alot of future players a benifit....more players...more $$$ for CCP....More resources to invest in Eve-online....
Don't the people who won't play EvE-online because of the pvp aspect of the game and "you're NEVER "safe" aspect of the game play WoW where there are pvp zones and thousands of "safe" zones?
"Being "screwed" by other plays"
Welcome to EvE for him?
Sandbox?
Yes/No?
"They want time to build up to be able to funct- " Again... Star Wars Galaxies and WoW are  way tbh.
You can safely level up your character to lvl 90 and function in the game at no risk at all from what I've seen.
You CAN* do the same in eve, buy ships, build ships, trade, etc, however, it takes... oh lord ... :effort: if you want to do it and be good and/or not die at it.
You travel in a freightor with 3bill worth of stuff you better be damn sure you have people remote repping you for each warp you take or about to take or a scout reporting, IN MY HONEST opinion, assuming the freightor is in a player owned corp. Is not like WoW where you can carry basically the same as 4bill, yes / no? , here for 5 6 straight without some type of risk in any shape and/or form.
"not be cannon fodder"
Corp 1 wardeccs corp B, corp b will be assumed to be the "Cannon fodder"
Now!
Oh Joy! The sandbox portion of EvE!
You can either
A)Quit the game in extreme internet emo-rage of how you don't have the skills to fight back.
b)RESEARCH! Ways to fight back!
C)Maybe ask for help AND SHOW INTEREST IN IT. Don't ask for help and then just stand back and watch the people your asking for help do all the work.
D)Post on C&P how X corp has wardecced us and we can't do anything about it.
Or!
E)Hire a merc corp and/or :gasp: ! fight back!
There are many a way to function in this game.
It just isn't as hold my hand hello kitty online happy rainbow straight forward point A --------- B
There is no line in this game.
To get from point A to be B, the player needs to find a way to do it. Many of these ways involve some type of pvp one way or another, or some type of player to player interaction in some shape and/or form.
I'm done .
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente
Noctis Fleet Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 04:17:00 -
[517]
Originally by: Ruze
Plus, I personally think American's (of which I am) stopped speaking 'English' a long time ago. We should probably stop trying to argue the semantics of what is 'proper' English, and just break down and call it something different.
You certainly don't seem to know the proper way of using apostrophes. That's not the language evolving, though, that's just you not knowing how to use apostrophes.
|
Malcanis
RuffRyders
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 08:30:00 -
[518]
Originally by: Roshan longshot
Originally by: c0rn1
Actually I dont have a problem with the fact that they wanna put empire a little safer.
BUT
They should underline their risk vs reward PR.
Why should a mission runner have high rewards in absolut safety?
I say, distribute the mission levels accordingly.
lvl 1 missions in 0.0-1.0 sec
lvl 2 missions in 0.0-.7
lvl 3 missions in 0.0- .4 sec
lvl 4 missions in 0.0- 0.2 sec
lvl 5 missions in faction 0.0 only.
Easy as that. No risk, no reward. Empire should be a safe trading place.
regards
c0rn1
And by your table there...Nobody would risk their boats doing level three missions or higher. Mission runners set up to run the missions not pvp...a mission ship, no matter what tech level he is running cant fight a pvp ship.
Ireckon you could run most/all level 3 missions in a PvP ship.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Tippia
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 09:14:00 -
[519]
Originally by: c0rn1
Empire should be a safe trading place.
Now there's a contradiction in terms if I ever saw one… 
|
Felix Dzerzhinsky
Caldari
Wreckless Abandon
Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 09:38:00 -
[520]
I still cannot understand why people had to join a pvp game and demand pve and safty. . .EvE was always about pvp. . .why are you people ruining that.
----
GO BLUE!! |
RagnhildR tu
Caldari
Rognvald Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 10:21:00 -
[521]
Attacking enemy logistics is a legitimate act of war. Suicide ganking, (Because you can, or for personal profit) is different that is one player merely being true to himself, or in plain good old anglo-saxon, he's being a ****, because he is one.
What are you doing in my pod? GTFO! |
Ogul
Caldari
ZiTek Deepspace Explorations
United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 11:04:00 -
[522]
Originally by: Felix Dzerzhinsky
I still cannot understand why people had to join a pvp game and demand pve and safty. . .EvE was always about pvp. . .why are you people ruining that.
Hmmm... what do you say to people who complain about too little PvP in EVE.
Would "Go back to Counterstrike" probably do?
---
Don't put your trust in revolutions. They always come around again. That's why they're called revolutions. People die, and nothing changes. |
fuze
Gallente
Chosen Path
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 11:13:00 -
[523]
Originally by: Felix Dzerzhinsky
EvE was always about pvp.
Can you plz point out where CCP says Eve is a pvp game? |
Pheusia
Gallente
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 11:45:00 -
[524]
Originally by: fuze
Originally by: Felix Dzerzhinsky
EvE was always about pvp.
Can you plz point out where CCP says Eve is a pvp game?
It's pretty implicit here.
Signed,
Pheusia |
fuze
Gallente
Chosen Path
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 13:26:00 -
[525]
Originally by: Pheusia
It's pretty implicit here.
Please train your URL Linking skill to lvl 1.
Kthxbye. |
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 13:36:00 -
[526]
On the suicide gank changes:
There's little problem with the gankers getting their hundred mill from the gank they may have waited hours for, the problem is that the cost incurred by the victim is/was vastly disproportionate to the time and effort invested by the attacker. To put it in popular EVE vernacular, using a freighter pilot as an example, the risk was a respectable chance of losing four billion plus on a run and the reward the chance of getting a couple of dozen million ISK (after successfully risking that cargoes profits again on the competitive and volatile player market) on a successful run.
CCP's intent seems to be that hi-sec is supposed to be safe provided you aren't stupid or in what they consider a "valid" war. Provided stupid people still come to the forums complaining about their lost faction/officer fitted CNR's or the BPO's they decided to carry around in a Velator or shuttle, or losing everything they owned in their t1 hauler I'd say CCP have fulfilled their design intent, right or wrong, with this change.
Altering suicide ganking has no impact on the majority of PvP'ers as they don't live is high-security space because the security there is... too high. Complaining like this change is the end of everything isn't going to change CCP's mind. They want the "carebear" population in hi-sec paying their bills, they want to see maximum returns on ambulation, but they also want the logistics of wealthy organizations to be viable targets so they really are going to have to take a good look at the NPC corps and corp-hopping to avoid war-decs sooner or later.
A simple, band-aid change would be setting a list of ships an NPC corp player cannot fly much as they have for trial accounts and ensuring that during a war-dec players are either locked into the corp for that cycle or tagged as viable targets for that cycle regardless of changing corp.
This is the kind of stuff we should be discussing if we want risk to remain in hi-sec, so that the high-security in hi-sec isn't a blanket effect but one that can be successfully negated against deserving targets. Of course with CCP's plans to alter the war-dec system then we should also be discussing just what makes a valid target and what the conditions of renewing a war-dec should be. Two 0.0 entities should be able to shaft each other in hi-sec until the second coming, but a veteran PvP corp should not, in CCP's eyes it would seem, be griefing new player corps out of the game.
TL:DR We need suggestions that suit what the game is and what CCP intend it to be, not what it was or what we wish it to be. If we don't like CCP's intentions then we should vote with our wallets and go play play something else.
[The lo-sec/hi-sec income disparity belongs more in the lvl4 mission threads so no there's no mention of it in this post.]
|
Tippia
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 13:38:00 -
[527]
Originally by: RagnhildR tu
Attacking enemy logistics is a legitimate act of war. Suicide ganking, (Because you can, or for personal profit) is different that is one player merely being true to himself, or in plain good old anglo-saxon, he's being a ****, because he is one.
The problem is that there is no way of mechanically separate the two. Sometimes, the only way to legitimately attack that supply chain is to employ suicide ganks. |
JamnOne
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 15:33:00 -
[528]
Edited by: JamnOne on 04/09/2008 15:35:52
Originally by: Tippia
The problem is that there is no way of mechanically separate the two. Sometimes, the only way to legitimately attack that supply chain is to employ suicide ganks.
But now you are talking about using actual strategy to weaking a corp or an alliance. Earlier in this post CCP Greyscale actually mentioned that was ok. It was when it turned into Suicide Gank just to do it that the problem came about.
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
When the early discussions for the changes being implemented were going on, one of the things that was generally agreed on was that targetted, pre-meditated strikes on enemy shipping were cool and a necessary option and should as much as feasible be maintained as an option under the new system. If you spend a couple of weeks pinning down the schedule of a particular dysprosium freighter and attack it with a well-planned ambush, that's cool gameplay, and serves as a suggestion that maybe if you're shipping such large volumes of high-value goods you might want to at least vary your schedule a little. The very first freighter suicide-gank that I'm aware of, back when freighters didn't even drop loot, was another example of good gameplay - the goal there wasn't to make a quick buck, it was to deny the enemy crucial supplies, which is an excellent goal in a strategic game.
Which runs on into the second part of the argument, which is that as Zulupark mentioned earlier in the week, the goal isn't to try and step away from the original vision - it's to try and bring things back in line with that vision, as we understand it. A couple of years ago suicide-ganking was, as far as I could tell, a near-total non-issue, occurring in a few sporadic cases where someone really wanted to achieve something but otherwise didn't seem to be happening a whole lot. Changes in the mineral market and knock-on effects on ship prices relative to insurance in the recent past have changed all that by making the cost of losing a ship to CONCORD increasingly small, and thus the necessary cargo value of a target for a hit to be profitable also considerably smaller, so we've taken steps to redress the balance. Again, this isn't a case of us wanting to alter the original paradigm, it's an attempt to return to the actual balance of play we had before.
EDIT: Sorry if I quoted out of context or misrepresented what you were saying CCP Greyscale.
________________
Poor is the nation that has no heroes.
Shameful is the one that, having heroes - Forgets them!
Author Unknown
|
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 15:35:00 -
[529]
Risk vs reward? Is that your argument? Because the reward of any mission right now is no where near the risks of ship loss to pvp. Remember, most missioners are solo... most low sec gankers have griefer pals. So in essence you want to moo the cattle of missioners one at a time thru your camps. NOT gonna happen. Lvl 5's are the only missions somewhat near the risk of low sec.
Leave, and go fight where people want to fight. Missioners have the risk of npcs... they have the time to grind. That's their style... don't be a hater just cuz you rather waste your time on a gate camp, rather than profit thru missions.
---------------------------------
Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man. |
Drunk Driver
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 15:38:00 -
[530]
Posting in a whiny pirate "nerf missions" revenge thread.
. |
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 16:27:00 -
[531]
Edited by: Le Skunk on 04/09/2008 16:28:56
Originally by: JamnOne
But now you are talking about using actual strategy to weaking a corp or an alliance. Earlier in this post CCP Greyscale actually mentioned that was ok. It was when it turned into Suicide Gank just to do it that the problem came about.
Who is going to be able to judge which is which.
And how can a small corp run a strategy to defeat a bigger corp, say if a small corp started suiciding bob freighters in high sec.. if the cost to the suiciders is so immense, they bankrupt themselves.
CCPS planned removal of insurance puts more power into the hands of the big alliances, who drop their alliance tickers and run in NPC corps (who CCP make undeccable)a trend which has been going on for some time.
Greyscales "logistical terrorism war decs" ideal is utterly hollow - as by removing a way to force a small corp to fight, and endorsing bureaucratic bodgexploits to escape a war dec - it is also impossible to bring the Massice alliances to task as well.
SKUNK
SKUNK
|
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 17:10:00 -
[532]
Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 04/09/2008 17:15:41
Originally by: Le Skunk
Who is going to be able to judge which is which.
And how can a small corp run a strategy to defeat a bigger corp, say if a small corp started suiciding bob freighters in high sec.. if the cost to the suiciders is so immense, they bankrupt themselves.
CCPS planned removal of insurance puts more power into the hands of the big alliances, who drop their alliance tickers and run in NPC corps (who CCP make undeccable)a trend which has been going on for some time.
Greyscales "logistical terrorism war decs" ideal is utterly hollow - as by removing a way to force a small corp to fight, and endorsing bureaucratic bodgexploits to escape a war dec - it is also impossible to bring the Massice alliances to task as well.
SKUNK
SKUNK
A lot of sense right there. It is difficult to impossible with the current mechanics to tell the casual, soloist, NPC corp player from the NPC corp alt that is used to shelter logistics and isk grinding that benefit supposedly PvP oriented corp and alliance players from PvP.
About the only way around, truly, is to nerf high-sec across the board. This would include:
Restricting manufacturing to T1 stuff smaller than a BS.
Restricting the markets to T1 items and materials, and substantially limiting the number of open orders a character could have in high-sec.
Getting rid of high-sec POSes.
Moving L3 and L4 missions to low-sec.
Restricting Freighters from high-sec.
If you did all of the above, high-sec becomes a "starter island" for genuine noobs that nobody would ever stay in after a few weeks, or visit again after they left. Everything meaningful in the game would happen in low-sec and nullsec, where PvP is always an option.
I'd be game, but I doubt CCP would be. They are moving in the other direction, and making the game more friendly to players who don't want to PvP.
The problem with the above, of course, is that it would be really difficult for a casual player who plays 10 hours a week or less to survive. His losses would probably bankrupt him fairly quickly and he'd just leave.
|
Doctor Remulak
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 17:16:00 -
[533]
Originally by: 5pinDizzy
oh god not another whine
couldn't agree more
|
c0rn1
Seraphin Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 17:53:00 -
[534]
Edited by: c0rn1 on 04/09/2008 17:55:55
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: c0rn1
Empire should be a safe trading place.
Now there's a contradiction in terms if I ever saw oneā
I do not see the part of the contradiction. Let people ship their stuff under Police protection anywhere in Empire. I don't mind. But don't give the big fishs out for free.
- If I wanna have my big fishs in mining I gotta go to 0.0 to get the real stuff. (either moon or roids)
- If I wanna earn some money with ratting I gotta go to 0.0 to make some real bounties drop in on my wallet.
=> So I fail to grasp the fact why people - according to the RvsR policy by CCP - get free big fishs in form of lvl 4 missions in police protected territory? That's the contradiction I see in CCP's ruleset.
* If you wanna earn cash, you gotta risk some of your possessions. Eve is not a SOLOPLAYERWTFBBQIAMUBERRICH game.
* If you wanna do lvl 4 missions you gotta go where it might hurt you. Find a corp if you can't stand against the odds coming up to you by yourself.
This is a _massively_ MULTIPLAYER online game. MULTI and PLAYER. If you connect that with massive you get the meaning of Eve.
Like I said above. I am ok if they make the police stronger and remove the insurance. But on the other hand remove the blanko cash cheque given into players hands in form of high level missions there.
regards
c0rn1
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Life's a waste of time ... |
Shagrath Neptune
Series of Tubes
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 18:05:00 -
[535]
Originally by: c0rn1
Edited by: c0rn1 on 04/09/2008 17:55:55
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: c0rn1
Empire should be a safe trading place.
Now there's a contradiction in terms if I ever saw oneā
I do not see the part of the contradiction. Let people ship their stuff under Police protection anywhere in Empire. I don't mind. But don't give the big fishs out for free.
- If I wanna have my big fishs in mining I gotta go to 0.0 to get the real stuff. (either moon or roids)
- If I wanna earn some money with ratting I gotta go to 0.0 to make some real bounties drop in on my wallet.
=> So I fail to grasp the fact why people - according to the RvsR policy by CCP - get free big fishs in form of lvl 4 missions in police protected territory? That's the contradiction I see in CCP's ruleset.
* If you wanna earn cash, you gotta risk some of your possessions. Eve is not a SOLOPLAYERWTFBBQIAMUBERRICH game.
* If you wanna do lvl 4 missions you gotta go where it might hurt you. Find a corp if you can't stand against the odds coming up to you by yourself.
This is a _massively_ MULTIPLAYER online game. MULTI and PLAYER. If you connect that with massive you get the meaning of Eve.
Like I said above. I am ok if they make the police stronger and remove the insurance. But on the other hand remove the blanko cash cheque given into players hands in form of high level missions there.
regards
c0rn1
When i did lvl 4 missions, I lost a considerable amount of Battleships and rigs because of stupid, noobish mistakes that will eventually happen to any mission runner if they run lvl 4's long enough.
Things such as forgetting about a frig npc scrambling you before it is too late, not managing your cap/tank correctly. These things can happen more often than you think.
A loss of a BS is a setback to a mission runner. How much of a setback is determined by how much they pimped their ships and how much time has gone by in between losses. I personally only used t2 fitted BS whcih cost me around 200-250 million with rigs but that is still a chunk of change when you lose it.
To sum up, people like you who say lvl 4 missions are risk free are pretty clueless.
|
c0rn1
Seraphin Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 18:12:00 -
[536]
Originally by: Shagrath Neptune
When i did lvl 4 missions, I lost a considerable amount of Battleships and rigs because of stupid, noobish mistakes that will eventually happen to any mission runner if they run lvl 4's long enough.
Things such as forgetting about a frig npc scrambling you before it is too late, not managing your cap/tank correctly. These things can happen more often than you think.
A loss of a BS is a setback to a mission runner. How much of a setback is determined by how much they pimped their ships and how much time has gone by in between losses. I personally only used t2 fitted BS whcih cost me around 200-250 million with rigs but that is still a chunk of change when you lose it.
To sum up, people like you who say lvl 4 missions are risk free are pretty clueless.
So you call me clueless while you admitted losing ships because of misstakes a sentence before? And due to this you actually admit if you would be a smart mission runner you'd not lose ships and have a free blanko cheque in your hand?
that, sir, was a priceless answer. I give you that.
regards
c0rn1
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Life's a waste of time ... |
Malcanis
RuffRyders
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 18:13:00 -
[537]
Edited by: Malcanis on 04/09/2008 18:13:38
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 04/09/2008 17:15:41
Originally by: Le Skunk
Who is going to be able to judge which is which.
And how can a small corp run a strategy to defeat a bigger corp, say if a small corp started suiciding bob freighters in high sec.. if the cost to the suiciders is so immense, they bankrupt themselves.
CCPS planned removal of insurance puts more power into the hands of the big alliances, who drop their alliance tickers and run in NPC corps (who CCP make undeccable)a trend which has been going on for some time.
Greyscales "logistical terrorism war decs" ideal is utterly hollow - as by removing a way to force a small corp to fight, and endorsing bureaucratic bodgexploits to escape a war dec - it is also impossible to bring the Massice alliances to task as well.
SKUNK
SKUNK
A lot of sense right there. It is difficult to impossible with the current mechanics to tell the casual, soloist, NPC corp player from the NPC corp alt that is used to shelter logistics and isk grinding that benefit supposedly PvP oriented corp and alliance players from PvP.
About the only way around, truly, is to nerf high-sec across the board. This would include:
Restricting manufacturing to T1 stuff smaller than a BS.
Restricting the markets to T1 items and materials, and substantially limiting the number of open orders a character could have in high-sec.
Getting rid of high-sec POSes.
Moving L3 and L4 missions to low-sec.
Restricting Freighters from high-sec.
If you did all of the above, high-sec becomes a "starter island" for genuine noobs that nobody would ever stay in after a few weeks, or visit again after they left. Everything meaningful in the game would happen in low-sec and nullsec, where PvP is always an option.
I'd be game, but I doubt CCP would be. They are moving in the other direction, and making the game more friendly to players who don't want to PvP.
The problem with the above, of course, is that it would be really difficult for a casual player who plays 10 hours a week or less to survive. His losses would probably bankrupt him fairly quickly and he'd just leave.
Good reply to a good post. No idea why you wouldn't want it attributed to your main, actually, but that's a side issue. Anyway, just wanted to comment on your final paragraph:
The problem with the above, of course, is that it would be really difficult for a casual SOLO player who plays 10 hours a week or less to survive. His losses would probably bankrupt him fairly quickly and he'd just leave.
A player who joined a moderately well-organised mission corp should have little difficulty in surviving in lo-sec, especially if some of the mooted changes to the way missions are received and structured were to be implemented. Intel channels, mercenaries, deals cut with local pirate groups, combined with the change in ships types that would be required by decoupling missions from the brainless treadmill of 'higher level = more DPS = bigger, slower ship' would mean that the casual player would have the chance to be reasonably safe.
There would then actually be a point to mission running corps, and the good ones would gain reputation and grow. Casual players would be the very ones most likely to need and be in a corp - solo mission running in lo-sec would become the occupation of the elite. There would be a massive swing away from the 'solo game with a chat client' archetype that is counter to everything a game like EvE should be. And I think that would be a very, very good thing.
In short, I believe that the great numbers of mission runners could potentially have far more in-game power than they realise. Most of the posts I have seen from them are predicated on the assumption that they will lose any conflict, and it makes me sad to see people arguing so passionately for their own helpnessless and against any attempt to remedy it.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Shagrath Neptune
Series of Tubes
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 18:23:00 -
[538]
Originally by: c0rn1
Originally by: Shagrath Neptune
When i did lvl 4 missions, I lost a considerable amount of Battleships and rigs because of stupid, noobish mistakes that will eventually happen to any mission runner if they run lvl 4's long enough.
Things such as forgetting about a frig npc scrambling you before it is too late, not managing your cap/tank correctly. These things can happen more often than you think.
A loss of a BS is a setback to a mission runner. How much of a setback is determined by how much they pimped their ships and how much time has gone by in between losses. I personally only used t2 fitted BS whcih cost me around 200-250 million with rigs but that is still a chunk of change when you lose it.
To sum up, people like you who say lvl 4 missions are risk free are pretty clueless.
So you call me clueless while you admitted losing ships because of misstakes a sentence before? And due to this you actually admit if you would be a smart mission runner you'd not lose ships and have a free blanko cheque in your hand?
that, sir, was a priceless answer. I give you that.
regards
c0rn1
Yes I think you are clueless.
I don't see how me losing a few ships in some missions has anything to do with your lack of knowledge on the subject. You simply don't know what you are talking about.
Thing is, I was a "smart mission runner." I made enough isk off of it to not have to do it anymore. I made enough capital from it to allow me to make isks in a different profession.
However, it took a long time and it wasn't a "blank check." You should be banned from the forums just for saying something so idiotic. The time it takes to go from a noob in the game to the top of a lvl 4 mission chain is hardly a blank check. Not to mention equip, skill training times necessary then the time to actually do all those missions.
You are one of clueless souls who believes that time in the game isn't worth anything right?
I bet you think the minerals you get from asteroids are free too.....right? 
|
c0rn1
Seraphin Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 18:57:00 -
[539]
Originally by: Shagrath Neptune
Yes I think you are clueless.
I don't see how me losing a few ships in some missions has anything to do with your lack of knowledge on the subject. You simply don't know what you are talking about.
You admitted yourself that you did misstakes running the missions. Further you pointed out that it is hard to make level 4 missions. Only thing hard is to fight the boredom. There's no scrambler frig which can't be get a grip on with some small drones in your raven.
A 3 month old alt character can run lvl 4 missions in a raven.
I made mission running in a 0.3 system [Reynire] when my character was pretty new. Made my fair share of ISK there and had the pirates in my neck.
I didn't lose too many ships to pirates to make it NOT profitable. local helps alot and a corp which you are in. we settled in that area at that time. Made corp mining, pirate hunting to get used to PvP and mission running if we needed some extra cash or where not enough to do something else.
Originally by: Shagrath Neptune
Thing is, I was a "smart mission runner." I made enough isk off of it to not have to do it anymore. I made enough capital from it to allow me to make isks in a different profession.
See, you still made a good amount of ISK by missions without any player interaction. You played it as a solo game. Today you got constellation channels to warn you of pirates. I didn't and still were profitable with lvl 3 (!didnt have level 4 at that time!).
Originally by: Shagrath Neptune
However, it took a long time and it wasn't a "blank check." You should be banned from the forums just for saying something so idiotic. The time it takes to go from a noob in the game to the top of a lvl 4 mission chain is hardly a blank check. Not to mention equip, skill training times necessary then the time to actually do all those missions.
It is a blank check since everyone else who gets the nerves ripped out of his backbone by the boredom mission running does has to go to low sec or better 0.0 to get some ISK on his wallet. They have to interact with other players' evil or good intention.
Be it mining, be it ratting in a profitable area.
That is what makes a MMOG. If you don't like it I recommend Freelancer or some sort of solo player product.
Yeah, the hard part of getting to the top of a lvl 4 mission chain is to read worth of 2 pages on one of your favourite eve fan sites and a 3 month old character in a raven. I still have a raven sitting in Frarn to do level 4 missions when I need some extra cash. Cashs out at 30-40 million/hour with an additional character salvaging all the wrecks.
That, you can hardly call a TOUGH time earning some cash.
Originally by: Shagrath Neptune
You are one of clueless souls who believes that time in the game isn't worth anything right?
I bet you think the minerals you get from asteroids are free too.....right?
I had my fair share of a start in eve a couple years ago and I managed it. Why shouldn't others? Sitting in Empire and earning ludicrous amounts of ISK by rince and repeat without interacting with other players is what makes an MMOG for you?
Eve is/was intented as pure Player versus/with Players and a risk vs reward policy. Why should you have 0.0 rats, bounties and loot in empire for free?
regards
c0rn1
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Life's a waste of time ... |
Shagrath Neptune
Series of Tubes
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 19:10:00 -
[540]
Originally by: c0rn1
Originally by: Shagrath Neptune
A lot of whatever.....
Anyone who has done missions as a profession will lose a few ships to warp scram frigs or just doing something stupid. Sometimes mistakes are made from the sheer boredom of it. This will cause you to overlook or forget about something whehter it is an e-war frig or trigger to a pocket of new spawns ect. Anyone who says they seriously ran lvl 4's for any length of time and never lost a ship is lying. Me admitting to losing a few ships just goes to show that there are losses and risks. Even if they are small ones.
Sorry, i didn't read the rest of your drivel. You just come across to me as a bitter little kid who isn't getting his way in game and is lashing out at all the "evil carebears." I already wasted more of my time responding to you than you deserved. CCP obviously agrees with my view more than yours so keep arguing until your face turns red if this is how you vent.
Cya.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |